Re: Solaris ZFS on Linux [Was: Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.org regarding reiser4 inclusion]

Nate Diller
2006-07-31T23:21:31Z

On 7/31/06, Matthias Andree <matthias.andree@gmx.de> wrote:
> Adrian Ulrich wrote:
>
> > See also: http://spam.workaround.ch/dull/postmark.txt
> >
> > A quick'n'dirty ZFS-vs-UFS-vs-Reiser3-vs-Reiser4-vs-Ext3 'benchmark'
>
> Whatever Postmark does, this looks pretty besides the point.

why's that? postmark is one of the standard benchmarks...

> Are these actual transactions with the "D"urability guarantee?
> 3000/s doesn't look too much like you're doing synchronous I/O (else
> figures around 70/s perhaps 100/s would be more adequate), and cache
> exercise is rather irrelevant for databases that manage real (=valuable)
> data...

Data:
204.62 megabytes read (8.53 megabytes per second)
271.49 megabytes written (11.31 megabytes per second)

looks pretty I/O bound to me, 11.31 MB/s isn't exactly your latest DDR
RAM bandwidth. as far as the synchronous I/O question, Reiser4 in
this case acts more like a log-based FS. That allows it to "overlap"
synchronous operations that are being submitted by multiple threads.

NATE